CHRISTIAN PRACTICE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR MODERN POLITICAL THEOLOGY

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Athanasios Giocas
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Political Theology ◽  
Church And State ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
The West ◽  
Orthodox Christian ◽  
Orthodox Theology ◽  
Political Philosopher ◽  
Modern Orthodox

In the twentieth century, the Orthodox Christian diaspora played a critical role in the development of modern Orthodox theology. Forced to take up residence in the West, major figures like Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944), Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), Vladimir Lossky (1903–1958), and Alexander Schmemann (1921–1983) successfully reinvigorated Orthodox theology for succeeding generations. Their works have become the standard readings in theological faculties and seminaries the world over. But despite the durable and multifaceted heritage of modern Orthodox theology, contemporary Orthodox Christians have been, for the most part, rather timid in thoroughly engaging themselves with matters political. Notable exceptions include Nicolas Berdyaev (1874–1948), who provides a far-reaching critique of both state sovereignty and the Orthodox Church's historic role in supporting worldly realms of authority. For his part, Bulgakov offers some penetrating insights in favor of the separation of church and state in the very brief chapter devoted to this topic, “Orthodoxy and the State,” in his classic treatise, The Orthodox Church. Somewhat later in the twentieth century, the few noteworthy authors who have much more specifically engaged with broader political questions include the current archbishop of Albania, Anastasios Yannoulatos, and arguably the most important Orthodox political philosopher today, Christos Yannaras.

The ‘Sophiological’ Origins of Vladimir Lossky's Apophaticism

2013 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon Gallaher
Keyword(s):  
German Idealism ◽  
Orthodox Christian ◽  
Mystical Union ◽  
Critical Knowledge ◽  
Dead End ◽  
The Face ◽  
Orthodox Theology ◽  
Theological Methodology ◽  
Modern Orthodox ◽  
Eternal Feminine

AbstractVladimir Lossky (1903–58) and Sergii Bulgakov (1871–1944) are normally taken as polar opposites in modern Orthodox theology. Lossky's theology is portrayed as being based on a close exegesis of the Greek Fathers with an emphasis on theosis, the Trinity and the apophatic way of mystical union with God. Bulgakov's ‘sophiology’, in contrast, if it is remembered at all, is said to be a theology which wished to ‘go beyond the Fathers’, was based on German Idealism and the quasi-pantheist and gnostic idea of ‘sophia’ which is a form of the ‘Eternal Feminine’ of Romanticism. In short, Lossky's theological approach is what people normally think of when they speak of Orthodox theology: a form of ‘neo-patristic synthesis’ (Georges Florovsky). Bulgakov's theological approach is said to be typical of the exotic dead end of the inter-war émigré ‘Paris School’ (Alexander Schmemann) or ‘Russian Religious Renaissance’ (Nicolas Zernov). Lossky, we are reminded, was instrumental in the 1935 condemnation, by Metropolitan Sergii Stragorodskii of the Moscow Patriarchate, of Bulgakov's theology as ‘alien’ to the Orthodox Christian faith. Counter to this widely held ‘standard narrative’ of contemporary Orthodox theology, the article argues that the origins of Vladimir Lossky's apophaticism, which he characterised as ‘antinomic theology’, are found within the theological methodology of the sophiology of Sergii Bulgakov: ‘antinomism’. By antinomism is understood that with any theological truth one has two equally necessary affirmations (thesis and antithesis) which are nevertheless logically contradictory. In the face of their conflict, we are forced to hold both thesis and antithesis together through faith. A detailed discussion of Lossky's apophaticism is followed by its comparison to Bulgakov's ‘sophiological antinomism’. Lossky at first appears to be masking the influence of Bulgakov and even goes so far as to read his own form of theological antinomism into the Fathers. Nevertheless, he may well have been consciously appropriating the ‘positive intuitions’ of Bulgakov's thought in order to ‘Orthodoxise’ a thinker he believed was in error but still regarded as the greatest Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century. Despite major differences between the two thinkers (e.g. differing understandings of reason, the use of philosophy and the uncreated/created distinction), it is suggested that Lossky and Bulgakov have more in common than normally is believed to be the case. A critical knowledge of Bulgakov's sophiology is said to be the ‘skeleton key’ for modern Orthodox theology which can help unlock its past, present and future.

A Secularism of the Royal Doors: Toward an Eastern Orthodox Christian Theology of Secularism

2019 ◽  
pp. 108-130
Author(s):  
Brandon Gallaher
Keyword(s):  
Christian Theology ◽  
Eastern Orthodox ◽  
The West ◽  
Bearing Witness ◽  
Orthodox Christian ◽  
In Christ ◽  
Orthodox Theology ◽  
The Trinity

The opposites, sacred and secular, are in an ‘original’ or ‘polemical unity’ in Christ and do not have their reality except in Him in a polemical attitude toward one another bearing witness in this way to their common reality and unity in the God-Man. History’s movement consists of divergence and convergence from and toward Him. One cannot, therefore, understand secularism and the secular and secularization apart from the fact that the secular is what is continuously being accepted and becoming accepted by God in Christ. Influenced by the work of Bonhoeffer, Bulgakov, and Richard Kearney and invoking Orthodox liturgy and iconography, Gallaher points to a church that images Christ and the Trinity by manifesting itself in kenosis. He argues for a move from an Orthodox anti-secularism that simply denounces and shakes its fist at the West to a positive Orthodox theology of secularism that tries to see how Orthodoxy might witness boldly to Christ in the modern pluralistic and secular West.

Twentieth-Century Orthodox Reception of Aquinas

2021 ◽  
pp. 441-451
Author(s):  
Marcus Plested
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Instability ◽  
First Century ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
Critical Engagement ◽  
Orthodox Theology ◽  
Twenty First Century

The reception of Aquinas in the twentieth century must be understood in the context of the experience of political instability, exile, and Communist oppression that affected, in one way or another, virtually all the theology of the period. In this century, the anti-Westernism of the Russian Slavophiles reaches something of a peak, with Aquinas routinely held up as an archetypal representative of a theological tradition quite foreign to that of the Orthodox Church. That said, there are a number of examples of a more nuanced and less polemical approach to Aquinas that serve to provide hope for a less confrontational (if still duly critical) engagement with Aquinas within Orthodox theology in the twenty-first century. Such an engagement would, in fact, be not unlike that widely found in the Byzantine and early modern periods.

Secularization of Family Law in Greece

1988 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-376
Author(s):  
Michael P. Stathopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Church And State ◽  
Jewish People ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
Greek Orthodox ◽  
Christian Church ◽  
Orthodox Christian ◽  
Byzantine Era ◽  
Historical Tradition ◽  
The Church

As our subject is the secularization of Greek Family Law, we may presume that this part of our legal system is not as yet secular or at least not exclusively so. Indeed, the strong influence of religious conceptions, particularly those of the Greek Orthodox Christian Church is an historical feature of Greek Family Law. This tradition is explained by the close relations in general between Church and State in Greece, relations which are rooted in the Byzantine era. The determinant importance of the Church in Greek society reached its peak during the period of the Ottoman occupation (1453-1821), when there was no Greek State and the Orthodox Church was its substitute. I think that we may find a parallel here between the Greek people and their religion and the Jewish people and their religion. After the national revolution of 1821, and with the regaining of their independence, the Greek people were organized in a secular state, retaining, however, important features of a religious character, in accordance with the nation's historical tradition.

scholarly journals The Russian Orthodox Church and atheism

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teuvo Laitila
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Church And State ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Russian Orthodox ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
Russian Orthodox Church ◽  
Orthodox Christian ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People ◽  
Communist Past

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the religious tide in Russia has been quick to rise. During the Soviet era, religion – particularly Orthodox Christianity and Islam – was considered to be one of the ‘enemies of the people’. Since the late 1990s however, Russian politicians at all levels of the power structure have associated themselves either with the Orthodox, or on some occasions with the Muslim, clergy. The present state of affairs in the relations between religion and the state are well illustrated by the cordial liaison of the late Patriarch Aleksii II with President Vladimir Putin and the equally warm involvement of President Dmitry Medvedev, and his wife Svetlana Medvedeva, with the new Patriarch Kirill, who was elected in January 2009. Some have even argued that ‘today’ (in 2004) the Church and state are so extensively intertwined that one can no longer consider Russia to be a secular state. Polls seem to support the claim. While in 1990 only 24 per cent of Russians identified themselves as Orthodox, in the sense that they felt themselves to be Russians as well, in 2008 the number was 73 per cent. However, less than 10 per cent, and in Moscow perhaps only 2 per cent do actually live out their religiosity.Why did Russia turn towards religion? Is religion chosen in an attempt to legitimise power, or in order to consolidate political rule after atheist-communist failure? My guess is that the answer to both is affirmative. Moreover, whatever the personal convictions of individual Russians, including politicians, religious, mainly Orthodox Christian, rhetoric and rituals are used to make a definitive break with the communist past and to create, or re-create, a Greater Russia (see Simons 2009). In such an ideological climate, atheism has little chance of thriving, whereas there is a sort of ‘social demand’ for its critique.I therefore focus on what the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has had to say about atheism and how her statements can be related to a break with the past and the construction of a new Russia. Or, in my opinion, actually deleting the Soviet period from the history of Russia as an error and seeing present-day Russia as a direct continuation of the pre-Soviet imperial state.

VAN PROKHANOV’S CRITICISM OF THE MOSCOW CAESAROPAPISM

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-129
Author(s):  
N. Maryukhno ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Theology ◽  
Church And State ◽  
Russian Orthodox ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Russian Orthodox Church ◽  
Imperial Period ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Spiritual Freedom ◽  
The Church

The article examines the socio-political theology of Ivan Prokhanov as a prominent Russian religious and social figure of the early twentieth century, chairman of the All-Russian Union of Evangelical Christians. His critique of the сaesaropapism as structure in the Russian state-church relations of the imperial period is studied. It is proved that Ivan Prokhanov sharply denounced the negative manifestations of caesaropapism, and above all the resistance of the Russian Orthodox Church to constructive reform in accordance with Christian evangelical values. The positions on the church-religious life of the evangelical theologian Ivan Prokhanov and the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the leader of the reactionary resistance to any changes, the ideologue of the counter-reforms Alexander III, were compared. In his sharp critique of caesaropapism, he relied on the Christian doctrine of man and society, believing that the legal precondition for overcoming its negative consequences was the separation of church and state, and the need for evangelical awakening of the Russian Orthodox people to gain spiritual freedom.

Human Perfection in Byzantine Theology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexis Torrance
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
The West ◽  
Orthodox Christian ◽  
Christian Understanding ◽  
Orthodox Theology ◽  
Maximus The Confessor ◽  
Human Destiny

Christian theology has from its inception posited a powerful vision of humanity’s ultimate and eternal fulfilment through the person and work of Jesus Christ. That said, how precisely to understand and approach the human perfection to which the Christian is summoned is a question that has vexed the minds of many and diverse theologians. Orthodox Christian theology is notable for its consistent interest in this question, and over the last century has offered to the West a wealth of theological insight on the matter, drawn from both the resources of its Byzantine theological heritage as well as its living interaction with Western theological and philosophical currents. In this regard, the important themes of personhood, deification, epektasis, apophaticism, and divine energies have been elaborated with much success by Orthodox theologians; but not without controversy. This work addresses the question of human perfection in Orthodox theology via a retrieval of the sources, examining in turn the thought of leading representatives of the Byzantine theological tradition: St Maximus the Confessor, St Theodore the Studite, St Symeon the New Theologian, and St Gregory Palamas. The overarching argument of this study is that in order to present an Orthodox Christian understanding of human perfection which remains true to its Byzantine inheritance, supreme emphasis must be placed on the doctrine of Christ, especially on the significance and import of Christ’s humanity. The intention of this work is thus to keep the creative approach to human destiny in Orthodox theology firmly moored to its theological past.

For the Life of the World and Orthodox Political Theology

2021 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-356
Author(s):  
Cyril Hovorun
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Political Theology ◽  
Russian Orthodox ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
Russian Orthodox Church ◽  
Social Doctrine ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
The 1960S

The article explores the document For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church ( FLW) in the contexts that had instigated its promulgation. It maps this document in the coordinates of the Orthodox political theology during the long twentieth century. FLW corresponds to a line in “the theology of the 1960s,” which advocated for liberal democracy and against anti-Westernism. The article argues that FLW fulfills the unaccomplished mission of the Panorthodox council in producing a comprehensive Orthodox social doctrine. It compares FLW with the social corpus adopted by the Russian Orthodox Church during the 2000s.

Studying Modern Arabic Literature

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Arab World ◽  
Public Intellectual ◽  
Arabic Literature ◽  
Global Culture ◽  
The West ◽  
Teaching And Research ◽  
The Face ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Modern Arabic

This book is devoted to the life and academic legacy of Mustafa Badawi who transformed the study of modern Arabic literature in the second half of the twentieth century. Prior to the 1960s the study of Arabic literature, both classical and modern, had barely been emancipated from the academic approaches of orientalism. The appointment of Badawi as Oxford University's first lecturer in modern Arabic literature changed the face of this subject as Badawi showed, through his teaching and research, that Arabic literature was making vibrant contributions to global culture and thought. Part biography, part collection of critical essays, this book celebrates Badawi's immense contribution to the field and explores his role as a public intellectual in the Arab world and the west.

Marie Ulčová and her Contribution to the West Bohemian Museums

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-23
Author(s):  
Nela Štorková
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
The West ◽  
West Bohemia ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Second World

While today the Ethnographic Museum of the Pilsen Region represents just one of the departments of the Museum of West Bohemia in Pilsen, at the beginning of the twentieth century, in 1915, it emerged as an independent institution devoted to a study of life in the Pilsen region. Ladislav Lábek, the founder and long-time director, bears the greatest credit for this museum. This study presents PhDr. Marie Ulčová, who joined the museum shortly after the Second World War and in 1963 replaced Mr. Lábek on his imaginary throne. The main objective of this article is to introduce the personality of Marie Ulčová and to evaluate the activity of this Pilsen ethnographer and the museum employee with an emphasis on her work in the Ethnographic Museum of the Pilsen Region. The basic aspects of the ethnographic activities, not only of Marie Ulčová but also of the Ethnographic Museum of the Pilsen Region in the years 1963–1988, are described through her professional and popularising articles, archival sources and contemporary periodicals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document